IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.37306 of 2014 BETWEEN Ch.Agaiah AND ... PETITIONER The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Department of Revenue), A.P. Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. At the request of respondent No.6 herein, respondent No.4 Tahsildar proposed to grant mutation in favour of respondent No.6 on the basis of registered sale deed, dated 08.11.2011. However, petitioner has filed objections before the Tahsildar stating that the land in survey No.244/B admeasuring Ac.2-06 guntas of Tirumalapur village was allotted to him in the family partition. Thereafter, respondent No.4 submitted a report to respondent No.3 seeking clarification from the dispute. Respondent No.3, accordingly, conducted enquiry and passed final order, dated 02.09.2013 in File Rc.No.F.1076/13, directing the Tahsildar to mutate the name of respondent No.6 in the pattadar and possessor column and issued pattadar passbook. Questioning that order, petitioner filed a revision on 02.09.2013 before respondent No.2 along with the application for stay, which is stated to be pending with respondent No.2, and neither the revision nor the stay petition is taken up and no orders are passed. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Since the relief sought for in this writ petition is related to hearing and disposal of the said revision, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent Nos.5 to 7.
4. Learned Government Pleader states that the petitioner’s revision would be considered by the respondent No.2 as early as possible.
In the circumstances, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to fix a date for hearing of the revision and/or application for stay and consider and pass appropriate orders at least to the extent of interim application of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 4, 2014 LMV